Empirical Evidence of God

So we have much to say on the subject of God, but I'm curious what would serve as empirical evidence for those who don't believe in God. What is it that you need to prove God's existence? Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand? Or is there something else that would prove his existence?

People are asking for evidence, but I'm not certain what it is exactly that would satisfy their needs. ???

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

So we have much to say on the subject of God, but I'm curious what would serve as empirical evidence for those who don't believe in God. What is it that you need to prove God's existence? Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand? Or is there something else that would prove his existence?

People are asking for evidence, but I'm not certain what it is exactly that would satisfy their needs. ???

Click to expand...

They create their own idea of God, then when you say here is the evidence, they reject, and/or deny it. Notice the folks will never discuss God as defined in any scripture.

They will assert that scriptures are man made, and cannot be used as reference.
Yet they don't mind using scripture when they think it supports them.

These folks are not only atheists, they are Anti-theists, and anti-God.
But they make for great discussion mates for theists. They allow us to not become complacent in our theism. They keep us alert.

So thank you atheist people. You perform a great service for God.

Jan.

P. S - That last paragraph should read accompanied by triumphant sounding music, for best effect.

So we have much to say on the subject of God, but I'm curious what would serve as empirical evidence for those who don't believe in God. What is it that you need to prove God's existence? Would it be something physical, solid--something you can hold in your hand? Or is there something else that would prove his existence?

People are asking for evidence, but I'm not certain what it is exactly that would satisfy their needs. ???

If you are asking for evidence of something and are totally clueless what the evidence would look like, it is actually your problem .... assuming one expects all the ranting one does about there being no evidence to be taken seriously

If you are asking for evidence of something and are totally clueless what the evidence would look like, it is actually your problem .... assuming one expects all the ranting one does about there being no evidence to be taken seriously

Click to expand...

Nope, it's not my problem to help you prove your premise. Either you can provide legitimate evidence or I can dismiss the premise as unsupported. You are asking me to provide an empirical route to prove the supernatural when the supernatural is defined as that which cannot be supported empirically. I can't fix your nonsense. If and when someone is able to show that the natural is not all there is, we can talk, but I don't know how or if it's even possible.

There's an expression, "the elephant in the room." It's funny how believers like to pretend that God is the elephant in the room - i.e. something that you can't avoid noticing. Yet they can't point to one single, solitary, blessed thing that is noticeable by everybody. I can think of things you would notice if there was an elephant in the room. Why can't you?

There's an expression, "the elephant in the room." It's funny how believers like to pretend that God is the elephant in the room - i.e. something that you can't avoid noticing. Yet they can't point to one single, solitary, blessed thing that is noticeable by everybody. I can think of things you would notice if there was an elephant in the room. Why can't you?

Click to expand...

So what criteria would a photograph of God have that a regular photograph would not?

Nope, it's not my problem to help you prove your premise. Either you can provide legitimate evidence or I can dismiss the premise as unsupported. You are asking me to provide an empirical route to prove the supernatural when the supernatural is defined as that which cannot be supported empirically. I can't fix your nonsense. If and when someone is able to show that the natural is not all there is, we can talk, but I don't know how or if it's even possible.

Click to expand...

Doing aside with your begging of the q error in conflating the natural with the empirical, what would evidence that the empirical is "not all there is" look like?

I mean, as things stand, you can take any empirical line of inquiry you care to mention and end up with a grossly incomplete picture.

If you wish to limit the evidence to empiricism, you already have what you would require.

You could even put up your own suggestion now you have a couple of templates to work with

Click to expand...

Evidence proof? Just get someone or thing to appear and give reason and critical thinking skills to believers. ..No one could ignore such for not being a miracle supporting supernatural powers...
We sure could make a list but it is up to believers to offer evidence that is compelling they cant come near reasonable as yet...still fun to make up a test..could be like a job application...I like moving land marks around but maybe an advanced species could do that with technology so that will not prove we have a good test...If God had of addressed this problem we would not have this problem..if he appeared weekly flying onto the balcony to be with the pope...regular so you could watch on TV..quick come and look God is visiting Trump today to deliver a new health care plan.
Come back and do the loaves and fish catering thing with Ramsey...
Appear in each church all of them at once every service presenting to mirror that religions concept of God.
Why not...really you could expect a little more involvement...again Gods problem to solve.